dodecahedral_number

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool calculates a value but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as input validation (e.g., whether 'n' must be non-negative), error handling, performance characteristics, or output format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence stating the purpose, followed by domain/category context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's mathematical nature, no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what a dodecahedral number is, the formula used, output format, or error conditions. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage and one parameter ('n'), the schema only indicates it's an integer. The description doesn't explain what 'n' represents (e.g., index, order) or any constraints. However, since there's only one parameter and the purpose is clear, the baseline is 3, but it doesn't compensate for the lack of schema details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Calculate the nth dodecahedral number.' It specifies the verb ('Calculate') and resource ('dodecahedral number'), and the domain/category context helps distinguish it from siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar figurate number tools (e.g., 'icosahedral_number' or 'tetrahedral_number') in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the domain and category but doesn't indicate specific use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'icosahedral_number' or 'polygonal_number'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.